Hi WT,
"....don't do a "deymeyer" on me...."
I laughed out loud in the library when I read that and everyone looked at me for a second ! Very funny ! I want you to know that there is peace between Ken and I. We agree to disagree and I admire his posts.
Yeah Ken is okay.
When you insult the scholarship of Dr. Scott and say nothing to show his error it makes me lose interest in the debate.
I have shown the faults in Scott’s arguments many times, that you do not recognise these as faults does not alter the fact that they are there.
Brian, Dr. Scott is the brighest scholar to ever open a Bible.
I think you should add to this statement ‘in your opinion’ because he certainly isn’t anywhere near the quality of scholars such as Julius Wellhausen, Martin Noth, Roland de Vaux, or William Albright, but again this is just my opinion. But I think to call someone who doesn’t read Hebrew the brightest scholar to ever open a Bible is doomed to failure.
Even his worst critics cannot find fault with his eminent position as God's master domata (gift minister Eph.4:11). The mantle of G. Campbell Morgan is upon him. You could not be anymore wrong about him.
Again this is your opinion, I have found massive faults in his work, they are there, you just don’t want to see them.
If you want me to continue the debate then you need to refrain from the name calling.
I actually agree with you here, after this post I will not mention Scott again, I think by now you have a good understanding of what I think about him. I really didn’t mean to hurt your feelings, but I see ‘scholarship’ like that displayed by Scott to be deliberate deception and feel that he is misleading his readers.
Mutual scholarly respect for Dr. Scott is a must or I cannot participate in this debate with you.
I can promise not to mention Scott again, but I have as much respect for him as I do for Eric Von Daniken, they actually have a lot of similarities. But I wont mention him again.
The first section of the post SEEMS to say that I do not understand that the Jewish day begins and ends at sundown.
It is actually asking why you ignore the Wednesday afternoon as being the first day.
Yes I ignored your scriptural examples. They are irrelevant to the issue.
How can they be irrelevant to the issue, they are from the only collection of books that mention this event, so how can they be irrelevant?
You are trying to evidence something that doesn't make sense nor is it true.
It makes perfect sense, and has done for nearly two thousand years.
You are trying to defend a crucified Christ entombed by sundown Friday.
I am defending Scripture, which is pretty weird for me when I come to think about it. I have nothing personally to gain from defending the Friday crucifixion, it really appeals to my sense of humour that for almost 2000 years Christians have been wrong about something so basic. But in all honesty I cannot ignore the texts, which make it quite clear that he died on a Friday afternoon at 3-o-clock and rose from the dead on the Sunday morning. This does fit in with the way Jewish time was reckoned, whether we like it or not, this is a fact.
The reason I ignored your verses is because the controlling verses are the gospel accounts where Jesus Himself inextricably links His death to the SIGN of the prophet Jonah. Jesus says He will be dead "three days and three nights" THEN raise according to the promise of the Father.
I have explained this to you, and given examples that support it, that you admit to ignoring these examples because they undermine your stance doesn’t mean that the verses are wrong.
Any attempt to explain that "three days and three nights" does not mean 72 hours defies the original greek and the english translations.
We are talking about Jewish time, not Greek or English, these are different cultures.
To argue that Judaism would render such an inexact interpretation of calendar time is altogether ignoring the specifics of the claims of Jesus in regards to the sign of Jonah.
But Jewish time was not exact, there is no clear demarcation of night and day. Then again, maybe you can explain to me, since I appear not to know, if we take a Wednesday to a Thursday as an example when would the Wednesday night begin and when would it end, and when would Thursday then begin, if Thursday began at sundown, when did Wednesday night end?
Your interpretations of words in verses defy the obvious intent of meaning (three days means 72 hours), to claim that partial days or nights qualify as a whole 24 hour period is erroneous.
Says who? What do you offer to prove me wrong? You really are forcing our Western concept of time onto a people from a different culture, time and place.
Brian, where did I ever say that sunrise begins or ends a day in question ?
Post 183
Wednesday sundown to Thursday sundown 1 DAY (24 hour period)
What else can you possibly mean?
Are you suggesting then that Jews do not count from evening to evening?
Your example may well be 24 hours but Wednesday sundown to Thursday sundown included two days and two nights by Jewish tradition.
I would also like to know why you continue to ignore that the Wednesday crucifixion proposal demands that Jesus died on the Wednesday afternoon?
If you wanted to adhere strictly to the resurrection being 72 hours after Jesus died then by your model he would rise from the grave on Saturday afternoon. If he rose on the fourth day as per your model, then many prophecies would be incorrect. Jesus said he would rise ON the third day, not ON the fourth day. On the Sunday of the resurrection, the disciples said these events happened three days ago, NOT four days ago.
The weight of evidence from Scripture is against your theory.
Negative, the day in question was a sabbath, a "High Day" sabbath - the Passover. Bodies could not be left on the cross from a sabbath going into the next "day" (which was actually night), which began the feast of Unleavened Bread, which is a feast within a feast.
You have claimed 33AD as the year Jesus died, the Passover was on a Friday that year, there are many online Jewish calendars where you can check this out.
Our differences are over what constitutes a day (I say it is a 24 hour period from sundown to sundown) and you insist any part of any day (or night) qualifies as a day.
Yes, I know, and I know that you are incorrect here, you are forcing your concept of time onto something that does not require it.
With all due respect your scriptural references in evidencing your claims here can be interpreted otherwise.
All scripture is open to interpretation that is why there are many thousand different flavours of Christianity. However, by you simply saying that my verses can be interpreted differently is not the same as providing a different interpretation for those verses. I have explained why they support my view, you have not said why they are incorrect. I rather think that the examples I have given are very convincing.
What about the Scripture that says "and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life". END BRIAN QUOTE
The third day means at the end of 72 hours. As was Jonah "three days and three nights in the whales belly......"
But Jonah does not talk of 72 hours! These are all bare assertions by you. Yes he says after three days and three nights, this is not the same as what we mean in the USA and the UK by a 24-hour day.
In the middle ages the Church adopted customs from Babylonian mystery religions, which included the pagan practice of recognizing Nimrod's widow and Tamuz being reincarnated via a sunbeam, hence the sunrise resurrection and the sunburst emblems. These pagan practices celebrated these mythological events on Friday through Sunday mornings, they were festivals/parties. The Church couldn't stop the parties so they joined in and transposed the myths of Tamuz onto the similarities of Christ's Resurrection.
Are you saying that the Churches prior to the ‘Middle Ages’ did not believe that Jesus was crucified on a Friday?
I would like you to clarify exactly what you are getting at here, I do not want to respond to something that may misrepresent your position.
Thanks for the reply, sorry I haven’t answered sooner but you can appreciate that it isn’t always easy to find the time.
Brian.
PS. If you want to quote someone I find it easier to follow if you quote in this way.
To begin the quote, use brackets [ ] and put 'qs' inside the brackets, after the quote use the brackets again [ ] and this time put '/qs' inside the brackets. It makes things easier to read.
No comment 
™ Version 4.2